The Anglo-German Addiction to American Defense

It is obvious that the European members of NATO depend on the United States for their defense. And why wouldn’t they want that dependence to continue? Only Russia currently poses a direct military threat to Europe. However, for all its meddling—both military and nonmilitary—in European NATO members, Russia would hardly want to risk a shooting war with the United States, the world’s only military superpower. Plus, American protection allows Europeans to spend relatively less on defense and more on other things.

Yet, because of U.S. President Donald Trump’s vacillating rhetorical commitment to NATO’s mutual defense, it is becoming fashionable for some European politicians to argue that Europeans will increasingly have to look after themselves. Explaining the rationale behind the need for the EU to expand its military role, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told an audience in Prague on June 9 that the United States was “no longer interested in guaranteeing Europe’s security in our place.”

It is understandable that some European politicians use Trump’s wavering words to garner support for deepening EU military cooperation, which is welcome if it results in Europeans taking more responsibility for their own security. However, greater responsibility is not the same thing as strategic autonomy, and few European governments seem serious about reducing their military dependence on the United States. Apart from the speculative musings of some think tankers, there is no official proposal to develop a full-blown plan B, meaning a collective European military alliance distinct from NATO. (Despite Brexit, to have any military credibility, such an alliance would have to include the UK because it is the largest European defense spender in NATO.)

To illustrate: consider the strategic outlooks of the three biggest European spenders in NATO. France is the exception that proves the rule, having often suggested before Trump took office that Europeans should be more able to look after themselves. Paris has also been the most militarily active European member of NATO in recent years—including by acting alone. The French would generally prefer not to act alone, but the French ambassador to the United States noted on July 4 that “Europeans can’t think of building a future without the Americans.”

The other two leading European military powers, Germany and the UK, show no signs of reducing their strategic dependence on the United States. Take Germany, which Trump has singled out for not contributing enough to NATO. Chancellor Angela Merkel, who remains committed to the transatlantic alliance, has said that she wants Germany to meet NATO’s headline goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense (currently, Berlin devotes only 1.2 percent). Even if Germany spent that amount, which would make it the largest European spender in NATO, there is no guarantee that it would become concomitantly militarily active. German public opinion is generally more pacifist than in many other European countries.

Furthermore, Merkel’s opponent in September’s federal election, Social Democrat Martin Schulz, has used Trump’s urgings as a reason not to spend more on defense. Many German Social Democrats also support the idea of a European army; but without U.S. protection, such an army would require Germans (and others) to spend a lot more on defense—not to mention the military tasks that army might have to carry out.

The UK, in contrast, is more prepared to invest in and use military force than Germany, and has long had a close strategic relationship with the United States. Referring to the recent maiden sail of the first of the UK’s two new aircraft carriers, the pseudonymous British defense blogger Sir Humphrey neatly explained: “This is a useful reminder for the UK to the US that it is serious about playing its part in supporting US navy carrier deployments.”

Few officials or politicians in the UK are willing to discuss publicly how Europeans would defend themselves without the Americans. If anything, the British exit from the EU will push London even closer to Washington. Michael Fallon, the British defense secretary, said in March, “Our defense relationship with the US is unprecedented in its depth and scope. As we leave the EU, our bilateral relationships matter more than ever, so we’ll be enhancing our cooperation and investing more in our joint F-35 fast jet programme.”

For different reasons, Germany and the UK will likely remain addicted to U.S. defense. The alternatives are currently too daunting for Berlin and London. Germany cannot imagine itself as Europe’s leading military power, while the Brexit-bound UK appears to have no geopolitical options other than aligning itself ever more closely with the United States.

Moreover, U.S. actions speak louder than the president’s tweets. The Pentagon wishes to spend some $1.4 billion more in 2018 on defending Europe over this year’s $3.4 billion. Even Trump has started to feed the Anglo-German addiction: the day Juncker spoke in Prague, Trump said at a press conference with the Romanian president that he was committed to NATO’s collective defense. The U.S. president may repeat that sentiment today in Warsaw.

Anti-Trumpism alone will not convince Europeans to go their own way on defense. For one, most Europeans expect their relations with the United States to remain stable, according to a June 2017 Pew opinion poll, which suggests that Europeans still prefer to stick with the devil they know. For another, most Europeans are nowhere near psychologically prepared to defend themselves without U.S. protection. French exceptionalism aside, if Germany and the UK are unwilling to curb their addiction to American defense, why would other, militarily less capable Europeans do so?

Daniel Keohane is a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zürich.

The first global empire coined the best military doctrine: “Si vis pace para bellum”.
It helped it survive under a number of variations for more than 1400 years, until its capital fell to an actual NATO member.
NATO is an organization based on the mutual defense principle.
29 countries are together if any one of them is attacked, principle enshrined in Article 5.
Anybody with Internet access can easily verify that NATO just registered her first defeat, administered by Afghanistan, the traditional graveyard of empires and now multilateral defense organizations. There was never a war declaration against Daesh but that war doesn’t go well. The string of terror attacks perpetrated in the EU by EU born citizens claiming allegiance to Daesh was (hopefully was, not is) an undeclared war. The fall of Raqqa will relegate Daesh back to the status of cyber-caliphate, Salafism is here to stay in a for profit Internet dominated by Facebook.
Our world is under many immediate future threats. It is a world under threat by overpopulation (with or without global warming, whose effect appear to accelerate, as Nicaragua predicted). It is a world with countries capable of fielding armies of 400 million people, and non-NPT members developing first strike nuclear triads.
In this world the EU NATO members prepare for war in their traditional killing field: Europe.
Prepare means asking the US people to be ready to sacrifice everything for Suwalki Gap (Fulda is now in the past) and of course pay in advance for the privilege.
As the article says the US youth will keep borrowing to pay for the defense of the EU, the wealthiest, largest entity in Western history.
Whatever the US president will say in terms of reassurances it will not be enough for Norway (sitting on a trillion in her sovereign fund, which is out of touch for defense purposes), for example.
I can’t condemn them when we have here the illiberal Fareed Zakaria and his crew of PhD’s on CNN, whose belligerence has reached pathological levels. Illiberal because in spite of his propaganda the general public is not leaning towards war.
On a strictly military level it is hard to believe that even following a massive surprise attack, masked by say Zapad 2017, Russia will not be able to sustain a long offensive war in Europe. Rapid de-escalation would be a possibility, but it would be a gamble which doesn’t make any sense.
In any alternative, President Trump should ask the EU NATO members not for more money, but teach them to fight.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

CapitalistRoader

July 12, 20176:30 am

"As the article says the US youth will keep borrowing to pay for the defense of the EU, the wealthiest, largest entity in Western history."
Perhaps. But expending treasure is different from expending blood. The US is down to 61% European-American, down from 88% in 1950. In the event of war, it's unlikely that increasingly brown US youth will be clamoring to take of arms in the defense of lily-white Europe.
We're just not into you anymore.

European defense as strategic autonomy is impossible.Strategic goals of European interest 6000 km around Brussels are over-loop with US interest.So ,first will be diversification with US interested area within circle and then think about Russian treats to EU countries.This requires ten Years consistence EU policy and then exclaiming interesting goals and project protection joint power of that kind of joint EU policy .

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

St.Andrews

July 12, 20173:46 am

We shouldn't forget that Chancellor Merkels veto of the proposed merger of what was then EADS and BAe Systems - although approved by both Cameron and Hollande - put paid to any closer integration of UK strategy with Europe. Brexit almost certainly ensures the situation will remain unchanged for a generation. The question must now be what happens if Corbyn is elected as PM and tries to cancel the Trident replacement ? A partially German funded Euro-deterrent ?

Comment Policy

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.